Fill your hand, you son of a Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day!

True Grit was never my favorite John Wayne vehicle, but I find it almost impossible to go back to the ’69 version of Charles Portis’ novel True Grit now that The Coens had their way with that story. Some people hate Wayne just on principal, but he was solid as always as Rooster Cogburn, I just happen to prefer what Jeff Bridges did with the role, but a lot of that could rest on Hailee Steinfeld’s shoulders because I actually bought the protector relationship between the two. Don’t get me started on Kim Darby’s overacting in the original…

But there’s no denying that Wayne’s True Grit was a big film, important for his legacy as an actor (his Oscar win, if nothing else) and a big hit when it came out.

So here’s Duke on set during filming of True Grit, courtesy of William Forsche. Click to enlargen.

If you have a behind the scenes shot you’d like to submit to this column, you can email me at quint@aintitcool.com.

Almost never. But, man, the Coens did it with True Grit. Sure the John Wayne one is dated, but it's still great. Still, I have to jump on the bandwagon for preferring the Bridges version too.
I just wish all remakes, retoolings, reimaginings, etc; etc; put the love and artistic effort into their versions that the Coens did.
Two versions of the same basic story, both worth watching. Does not happen enough in modern film making.

Sorry.. Bridges is a great actor.. But i didnt really see it full force here. Damon is usually great but his role aside from the silly voice bit his tongue is mostly him running off then coming back.. Not even a decent match for the Hopper role which was a good scene in the original.. In fact ALOT of scenes were like that..
The one moment i really expected them to deliver was Rooster's shoot out with Lucky Ned and his gang.. In the older version.. Epic and bigger than life.. Which is what Wayne brought to it..
Even Campbell not great shakes as an actor... Or singer in my book played "La Beef" as a pompous know it all.. But you still liked him.. And didnt want him dead.. In the maybe more faithful adaptation he lives.. But who cared? No one..
The original ends at a great point.. Who wants to remember Rooster as a broken down drunkard who died in his sleep? Thats honestly *&#@ing depressing..
The Cohens shot the hell out of it.. Great looking pucture.. The winter setting was quite the departure but i missed the much larger scale outdoor scenes of the first adaptation.. Masterfully shot.. But when i reach for "true grit" i will be slightly disappointed if i come back with the Cohen's vision..

Growing up (and up to today), I've never heard of anyone hating John Wayne. In the good ol' days of the Western genre, you were either a John Wayne fan or NOT a John Wayne fan, but I never recall hearing about people "hating" him. Kind of a strong word to be using about the icon.
On that note, if you were to be considered a "man," you were a John Wayne fan back in the 50s, 60s, and up to the 70s. I believe if you said you were "not a fan of John Wayne," you were called a "homosexual" (especially if you said you "hated John Wayne," in which case you were lassoed, drug for 300 yards, and branded with a penis-shaped piece of red-hot steel).

The first obviously being No Country for Old Men. I didn't see it as a remake mostly because of its intentions of following the book and actually, you know, doing something unique and brilliant with the characters. I can't praise this film enough. A fucking masterpiece with perfect storytelling, perfect cinematography and perfect acting.

I prefer the earlier version, and find it more faithful to the book (except for the ending). Coen's screwups:
1) The bit about hanging the Indian is cheap pandering to moron's in the audience -- akin to P Jackson putting jokes about dwarf tossing into LOTR. It goes against the spirit of the book.
2) The business with LaBoeuf joining the hunt then leaving then joining then leaving then joining is different from the book and screws up the interplay between the characters.
3) The bear man bit is a waste of time.
4) The way the original filmed Rooster bringing Maddy to the doctor near the end was done more effectively in the first version.
The funniest, most exciting version is the audiobook of this read by Donna Tartt. Neither film version comes close to that.

is that the Coens did it better. I've read the book, and seen both films. Three if you include Rooster Cogburn. There's a tone to the book that the original only flirted with. The freak brothers brought it to life.
But I will agree that there is a non cynical quality to the John Wayne version that is endearing. The trouble arises when you realize that the book is possibly the most cynical western ever written. That's the beauty of it. And why Wayne's version will, and should play second fiddle.

Check out the Nostalgia Critic's "Old vs. New" comparison of both films...he makes a lot of great points. I watched both versions in the same day about a month back (The Duke in the morning, The Dude that evening), and both films have their own strengths and weaknesses but are overall fantastic Westerns, and it delighted me that the remake became the first authentic blockbuster release for the Coens.

a nearly exact carbon copy of john waynes versions except for 2 or 3 scenes. the dialogue was nearly exactly the same. only real difference was the ending. so lets not all pretend it was 2 different movies because it wasnt. same fucking movie 2 different scenes and dont even tell me the fucking scene in the new one about the ponies was better than waynes version because strother martin was kickass in that scene. i call bullshit. and all the John Wayne haters can suck my fucking dick you pussy mother fuckers.

I like you, but this is the most disappointing article I've ever ride by you. If you don't like John Wayne, that's one thing. Bu thate? Dude, that's way too far. He's an Icon, and cinema would be a helluva lot different if he wasn't a part of it. Bad form, Quint. Bad form.

The greatest Wayne Western for me is "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance": An absolute masterpiece of film, with fantastic performances, and a brutal, menacing turn from Lee Marvin. Although, in the case of "True Grit", the Coens version is infinitely superior to Hathaway's by a stretch - especially young Hailee Steinfeld who was a revelation. Kim Darby's incarnation lacked direction, and was quite frankly, annoying.

What a disappointing film. Like a crap retread of the already overrated Vertigo.
If you're looking for non-Bond early Connery, watch The Hill. Sidney Lumet (who would later get Connery's best-ever performance in The Offence) smashed it out of the park with this parabolic tale of revolt in a military prison.

Oh, I have met a few people who "hated" John Wayne. In college I met a fellow who grew up on a ranch in West Texas, and he nearly clobbered me at the mere mention of John Wayne's name. He wasn't being cool or ironic, he absolutely hated John Wayne so much that I thought he was about to have a stroke.
I really like both versions of True Grit, and look upon Wayne's and Bridges' performances with equal enjoyment.

Bridges was dull as a silent fart. The girl was good though and I loved the ending, but the humor was sparse and a tad pretentious... Everyone I showed it to, hated it; orginal is better they said.
I wasn't really a remake as the ending is way different...

In the original, John Wayne plays the usual John Wayne film persona but this time with an eyepatch. In the remake, Jeff Bridges plays a character completly unlike who he is in real life. Not hard to see of the two who does the better job. And then there's the big gap of difference of talent from the director of the original movie and the remake, a jorneyman versus two of the most talented directors working today.
Sorry if i don't hold the original movie in a high opinion. But i sure do hold the remake in very highly regard. This must be one of those very rare cases where the remake far surpasses the original.

The big fella was already an old man and he was already sick with the cancer that eventually killed him. Everybody knew he was on the clock, so Holywood gave him the award as a thank you for all the work he did all those decades. He was one of Holywood's biggest stars ever, he made a lot of money for a lot of people, he ment a lot to lots and lots of filmgoers everywhere, and they wanted him to have some kind of recognition beyond box office numbers.
Holywood does this so often they might as well create a new best actor oscar called "Best Career".